When one party asserts a position without sufficient evidence to support it, what type of argument is this?

The type of argument described involves asserting a position without adequate evidence, which aligns with the concept of "begging the question." This occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it independently. In essence, the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to prove, resulting in a circular reasoning pattern.

By failing to provide sufficient support, the argument does not establish a valid or convincing case for its conclusion and instead relies on the assumption that the conclusion is already true. This flaw undermines the argument's effectiveness and makes it unpersuasive to an audience seeking logical justification.

In contrast, other types of arguments listed, such as diversion or ad hominem, involve different tactics, like shifting focus away from the argument at hand or attacking a person rather than addressing their arguments. Understanding the characteristics of begging the question helps recognize when an argument fails to meet a standard of rational discourse.